Page 2294 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We, as an Assembly, need to keep in mind that what we impose by way of land tax is revenue we do not have to find elsewhere, and by imposing a tax on income producing assets we make this sustainable and equitable. If, as I have said, we were to move away from land tax there would be a burden on other taxation areas. Taxes in these areas would need to be extensive, often affecting people who do not necessarily have an asset base to sustain them. If social justice principles are seen to be worthy of upholding, we must continue to work towards a strong and equitable land tax base.
Madam Speaker, I support the Government's Rates and Land Tax (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) while acknowledging the work of the Leader of the Opposition which has drawn the Assembly's attention to current inequities in the imposition of land tax, inequities which will no longer exist following the passage of this Bill.
MR CORNWELL (8.56): Madam Speaker, as this is, I understand, a cognate debate, I rise to support the Rates and Land Tax (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1992 put forward by my colleague Mr Kaine. I remind members that Mr Kaine has put forward essentially three significant amendments to bring social justice back into the levying of residential rates and land taxes. These are, firstly, an exemption for those who should not be liable for this tax; secondly, improved circumstances for those who are liable; and, thirdly, the introduction of broader discretionary powers for the Commissioner for Revenue to determine appeals.
Since the original Bill was introduced by the Chief Minister all sorts of anomalies have occurred and the real intent of this tax became apparent. It is very simple; it is revenue raising. Interestingly, the Government has recognised some of these anomalies and, by the introduction of its own amendments, now purports to correct them, or at least some of them. I do not believe that they do so. In fact I think they simply create an even more confused set of bureaucratic rules governing the exemptions and place more power in the hands of the Commissioner for Revenue in exercising these discretionary powers.
As Mr Kaine has said, the Liberals oppose this tax. We will abolish it in government. In the meantime, however, in the interests of those who suffer its expensive consequences, we will attempt to improve it. It is an unnecessarily complicated land tax. Let me repeat: The tax should apply only to those properties that are, in fact and in action, income generating. It should not apply to empty houses. It should not apply to houses that are occupied by the absent owners' relatives or children on a rent-free basis. It should not apply to involuntary landlords. It should not apply to widows who have been left with free occupancy for the rest of their lives. It should not apply to any of those.
Further, we seek to ease the burden on those landlords who are liable for this tax, who are owners of income generating properties, and we do this by seeking to allow payment by instalments. We are doing this because not everyone who owns a rented property, as has been explained ad nauseam, is a capitalist. Indeed, most landlords of the ACT, I understand, would own no more than two rented houses. They rely on these investments for their day-to-day income. Many have placed their superannuation payments into these properties. In words of one syllable, they are people on fixed incomes. They do not have the ready cash to pay this tax in a single total amount, particularly as they have the further and simultaneous responsibility of paying rates as well as water rates, and perhaps, on occasions, excess water rates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .